Talk:Republics of Russia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC: Should Donetsk and Luhansk be included in the table and infobox?

Should the table and infobox in this article include Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic (with notes indicating that the Russian claim to these territories is not recognised by the international community, on the model of the current version of Federal subjects of Russia = [1]) OR exclude the claimed republics from the table and infobox ?

Editors are asked to make clear their opinion on both the table and the infobox. Furius (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I checked the China and Administrative divisions of China articles since the situations of Taiwan and the Line of Actual Control would appear to be relevant here. All the relevant maps on those pages note China's uncontrolled claims in secondary colors, so it seems to me we need a new image for this article. RAN1 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Territorial disputes, and their description in reliable sources, are not all the same. Each case is different, and we do not use the same formatting or presentation for entirely different circumstances. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

We must remove Crimea or add the 4 regions. Panam2014 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The Russian and Western views on this are both reliably-sourced, we can and should represent both. RAN1 (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Representing both views uncritically is an instance of bothesideism. Russia's claims should be mentioned somewhere, but they shouldn't be given prime real-estate in the main info-box. They should be hidden in a less conspicuous section of the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference from the Chinese example is Russia actually controls these regions, in part or in whole; this cannot be said about Taiwan. The lead of the article implies there are 89 federal subjects in Russia, which would include the 6 annexed ones (the 4 newly annexed regions + Crimea + Sevastopol); and furthermore Russia's constitution claims 89 regions. I think its fair to note that the status's are disputed, all RS say this, but not mentioning the regions at all ignores the real life situation. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  00:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Literally no-one has suggested not mentioning the regions at all. The article has a section devoted to them, and that section is summarised in the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The real life situation is that the majority of the world's countries have condemned Russia's actions as blatantly violating international law in various United Nations resolutions.

- Crimea 2014 UN res

- UN SC 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine res

- Russian invasion UN res #1

- Russian invasion UN res #2

- Russian invasion UN res #3

- Russian annexation UN res #4 <-- 143/193 countries voted in favour of condemning Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territories, whereas only 5/193 countries (including Russia) voted against the condemnation.

This is the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that nearly the entire world stands with Ukraine, whereas Russia stands more alone than it ever has before. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Another difference is both PR China and Taiwan ROC and the rest of the world agree that all of China is China: the dispute is who governs it. The proper disputed-territory maps of PRC and ROC are negatives of each other. But virtually the entire world says that the Kremlin’s partially occupied claims are part of Ukraine and not part of Russia. —Michael Z. 16:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The island of Taiwan possibly does not belong to the ROC (let alone the PRC) according to the "Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan". Many of the major world powers -- including Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom -- did not recognise the ROC's annexation of Taiwan post-WWII (Taiwan was previously a core region of the Empire of Japan), and the issue was swept under the rug following the Chinese Civil War. | EDIT: Hence, your comment "the rest of the world agree that all of China is China" is incorrect. The rivalry between the ROC & PRC and the Chinese annexation of Taiwan are two separate issues that should not be conflated. Only the PRC and the ROC (i.e. not the entire world) agree that all of China is China, and even then, only the Pan-Blue Coalition in the ROC supports this viewpoint, whereas the Pan-Green Coalition views Taiwan as a separate country from China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose in info-box, Support with appropriate NPOV portrayal in table/list: Russia's claims to Donetsk (DPR), Kherson, Luhansk (LPR), and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts are only a few weeks old, whereas the other examples from other countries that have typically been cited as "WP:OTHERSTUFF" are all several years or oftentimes decades old. Even the dispute over Crimea (including Sevastopol) is several years old, which makes it more significant than the four newly-annexed territories. The DPR and LPR were nominally "breakaway states" for eight years (arguably Russian puppet states), but Russia never officially laid claims to Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts up until 30 September 2022 (and during preceding weeks). "WP:NOTNEWS" is relevant here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

expanded comments Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

In another example for another country (which everyone here seems to have missed), Pakistan 1 2 3 4 has only relatively recently laid claim to a part of India called "Junagadh and Manavadar", which is located on the Western coast of India (not connected to Pakistan by land). This dispute can be traced back to 1947, when India annexed Junagadh (and Manavadar). The territory was previously ruled by a pro-Pakistan king, but most of the citizens were pro-India; India annexed the territory, and Pakistan eventually relinquished its claim to the territory at an unspecified time. In August 2020, Pakistan updated its official map to display Junagadh-&-Manavadar as part of Pakistan, effectively relaunching the claim from decades earlier. The claim was added to the map of Pakistan on Wikipedia (in the main info-box) in May 2022, citing the official claim on Pakistan's "Survey of Pakistan (Ministry of Defence)" website. This particular case is interesting because Pakistan has clearly only recently revived the claim for political reasons (it is likely that they don't even actively seek to take control of the territory, given how unfeasible such a task will be), and Wikipedia editors seem to have recognised this claim as significant enough to be added to the info-box map. | EDIT: Some other pertinent examples that are not well known: Venezuela's claim to most of Guyana (this is shown in the info-box map), and Guatemala's claim to most of Belize (this is not shown in the info-box map). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support: See the lead for WP:NPOV. We have reliable sourcing for the Russian view, and representing it in the infobox of an article about Russia's government structure is fair and proportionate. We can easily show the Western view with secondary colors, inline links to war-related articles, and notes. RAN1 (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Russia's claims to Ukraine were declared much more recently than most other major territorial claims around the world, and the claims (occupations+annexations) are also clearly a violation of international law, which is more unclear in many of the other cases due to how old they are (often tracing back to before "international law" as we know it even existed). Russia had recognised Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts as parts of Ukraine for three decades prior to invading and "annexing" them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  We do not have reliable sources that support the Russian POV. Having sources which are reliable for the Russian government's opinion is trivially true: we can use the Russian government’s website. But we do not have sources which state the Russian government’s opinion as a fact, and facts are what we include in the infobox. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  We post what reliable sources say about topics, and most I've seen mention Russia's claims with caveat, so we can state something along the lines of widely unrecognized claims in [secondary color] and put in notes for context, preferably in-line, ref'd otherwise. RAN1 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  We do state what reliable sources say. No reliable sources whatsoever say that the Luhansk and Donetsk regions are part of Russia. Zero. No editor has provided any reliable source. The infobox is not for a collection of opinions. If it were, per NPOV, we would need to include Chechnya in a different colour because the leaders of the Chechnyan independence movement say it is not part of Russia. And their opinion has been reported in RS. The infobox is not a space for collections of opinions. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding Chechnya, technically, we don't count the leaders of the separatist movement in Chechnya on their own since they are a government-in-exile rather than a de facto state. However, recently (a few days ago), Ukraine reportedly recognised the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria as a sovereign state (under Russian occupation), which means that at least one UN member state currently disputes Russian sovereignty over Chechnya. Georgia also historically recognised the CR of Ichkeria (as did the Taliban government, which currently controls Afghanistan), although it's unclear whether Georgia still recognises it. Some editors over at the article "List of states with limited recognition" have disputed the notion that Ukraine has recognised the CR of Ichkeria as a sovereign state, suggesting that the recognition was only partial or symbolic. I personally believe that the recognition was fully legal in effect, although we are still waiting to collect more information and sources on the matter. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, interesting. I would only add that on WP we do not privilege the opinions of governments or their leaders over others. Being in government does does not give them a special place as a point of view. We simply go by reliable sources, and WP:RSOPINION. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I believe that a consensus has been established to draw a distinction between state-to-state disputes and disputes by separatist movements that don't control territory. If no distinction were to be drawn, the list of entities that have a disputed status would be nearly endless. State-to-state disputes are regarded as being more significant on Wikipedia since these disputes can actually result in real-world territorial changes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Infoboxes are just as subject to NPOV as the rest of the article. As for the Chechnya case, it hasn't seen anything like the UNGA resolution condemning the annexation. RAN1 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  We've been over this. We aren't trying to say they are recognized parts of Russia. We are simply saying that Russia claims them, which reliable sources do indeed say. In the same way the map is presented on the page Russia. eduardog3000 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in the table and infobox, with clear indications that the Russian claims are widely disputed (using the model of Federal subjects of Russia = [2], where the disputed territories are marked off in a separate section, with different formatting (that article uses italics), with a clear note that most international observers consider them part of Ukraine. In the infobox, this might include depiction in the map with cross-hatching (as in Federal Republics) and the separating out of the names (at the end of the list, in brackets and/or in italcs). The indications need not be exactly these, but should be at least as clear.

It's important that WP not appear to endorse the Russian claims and I understand the point raised by some that the tables and infobox might appear to present the claims as an objective fact, but I think the precautions outlined here would make it explicit even to a casual reader that the territories are not really or legally part of Russia. It remains useful to have the information on the Russian claims about official names, capitals, languages, flags, and borders tabulated, to help readers interpret accounts of the war and of the Russian constitution.

In the discussion of WP:RS in the preceding discussion, editors have tended to talk past each other, so to be clear: I don't think sources that the regions 'actually are' part of Russia or that the regions 'are widely recognised as part of Russia' etc are required, because I don't think the article will be saying that they are (nor do I think it should). There are many reliable sources for the fact that Russia claims the territories as Republics and all I want the table to do is to indicate the details of the Russian claims. In this respect, the degree of actual control, mentioned by some above, seems irrelevant to me - if Russia claims Scotland or the Moon as Republics of Russia next week, I'd support their inclusion in this manner as well. Furius (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, in that article ("Federal subjects of Russia"), the info-box map is not good. It still looks like it is supporting Russia's claims (due to the bold colours and outlines), especially considering that it depicts the full borders of the oblasts/republics (despite the fact that all four of the newly-annexed oblasts are not fully under Russian control). With that being said, the table lower down in the article looks reasonably good to me, so it's just the info-box and the map that have problems. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on the map (it is hard to make the hatching clear, given how small the territories end up being beside the rest of the map), but I think working out how to display their status in a clear manner is a secondary issue to whether or not to display it at all. Furius (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, or show with distinctive NPOV visual treatment  It must be clear that these are not regular republics. In the infobox, add a separate list for the three claimed “republics of Russia” in Ukraine, perhaps labelled A, B, C, and give them distinctive visual treatment, showing the international borders of Russia and other states as bold, with the disputed republics indicated with diagonal stripes (the current map showing Crimea as part of Russia violates WP:NPOV). In the list, add a subhead row at the bottom for claimed “republics of Russia” in Ukraine, include maps with their locations in Ukraine filled with stripes and outlined with dashes. —Michael Z. 16:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  I see the map has been changed out now. —Michael Z. 17:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agree that the map should show them as disputed. Other than that, every textual inclusion or attempted inclusion of Crimea, DPR, and LPR has made it clear that they are disputed. Your proposal sounds in line with the one I mocked up here (text only, the map still needs changing). eduardog3000 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, too recent per WP:RECENTISM. With hotly-disputed territorial claims like this we should wait until the dust settles a bit, or at least until there's sufficient secondary sourcing indicating how they're being treated elsewhere, before putting them in general lists like these. And on top of that, what secondary sourcing does exist is giving Russia's claims here far less diffidence than the other examples you mentioned - it's being treated essentially as a tactical maneuver in the war rather than a serious territorial claim. --Aquillion (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in infobox; and Oppose in list. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is crystal clear: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Users agree that no reliable sources state that Donetsk and Luhansk are republics of Russia (the only exception is one user who advocated for inclusion suggested this as a RS. It is the website of the Russian puppet government in the region)

The infobox is for key facts. The inclusion of the various opinions and claims and counterclaims of interested parties in the ongoing territorial dispute is not appropriate. Those regions that are stated by reliable sources to be republics of Russia are included. The opinions of the Kremlin are not to be privileged and elevated to the quick-reference key facts part of the page. The only logical reason for doing so would be pro-Kremlin bias, which does not maintain NPOV.

Sortable lists present a problem in that any separate section into which disputed areas are placed will disappear whenever the list is sorted by, say, population or area. There is already a short list of claimed or pseudo-republics in the section titled "Attempted Republics", and the regions of Ukraine can be added to the shorter list there. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You've made some good points about the info-box. The DPR, LPR, and Crimea should not be included in the info-box for the reasons you mentioned, especially "facts". However, they can be mentioned lower down in the article, either as a subsection of the main list or as an entirely separate list (i.e. "disputed republics of Russia"). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose in infobox; and Oppose in list. Premature and we don't want to look like we are legitimising Putin's puppet states. If the situation is unchanged in say 2025 we can have another look at it. John (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is a good point. A lot of editors who have been involved with reporting on the Russian annexations on Wikipedia seem to have been very enthusiastic on reporting about every tiny detail at the exact moment that it occurs. For example, several users were adamant about adding Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast to the article "list of sovereign states" after Russia recognised them on 29 September 2022, even though Russia immediately annexed them the next day. Meanwhile, other editors have been adamant to closely monitor the Kremlin's official decrees, even arguing that the annexation didn't actually occur on 30 September 2022 but instead on 5 October 2022, which is when Vladimir Putin ratified the agreements that had been outlined earlier (note: reliable secondary sources typically say that 30 Sep is the exact date of annexation, so that is the date that I myself personally recognise, and I consider the 5 Oct date to be semantics and also a part of the Russian propaganda/narrative). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support including per reasons given by other in this RfC as well as my own discussion in a previous section of this page. I have previously made a mock up of how I think the information should be presented. Clearly showing that the regions are disputed. eduardog3000 (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with RAN1's arguments. Since for the Russian Federation they are Russian Republics, there is no reason not to include them in the Infobox. However, we should also make it clear (using colours, adding a separate list or explanatory notes) that the status of these territories is controversial. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  Note that the member states of a federation are determined by the federal constitution, not by international law or international consensus, as the article itself makes clear from the opening sentence: According to its constitution, the Russian Federation is divided into 89 federal subjects, 24 of which are republics. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  That clause in the introduction might have been added specifically for the purpose of supporting Russia's claims to Crimea and other territories, rather than the other way around. The sentence could have originally read "The Russian Federation is divided into 83 federal subjects." | EDIT: Well, I was correct, I guess. --> Republics of Russia (April 24, 2013): "The Russian Federation is divided into 83 federal subjects (constituent units), 21 of which are republics." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  it's more likely that that clause was added to relativize Russia's claim to Crimea etc. In fact it is obvious that the constitutive elements of a federation are determined by the federal constitution rather than international law or international consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  [3] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Re this particular edit, I'd like to note, that concept of 85 (then) regions in the "de facto membership of Russia" is not something very hard to find in RS. Seryo93 (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've encountered the user who made that edit once before. The only time I've ever interacted with him, I caught him blatantly lying about some simple information. It was such a plain lie that I wasn't sure whether he was intentionally lying or not, so I had to ask him to confirm. It ended up being confirmed that he was gaslighting me and other editors on purpose. Indeed, even he himself knew that he was lying and yet continued to lie. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please @Jargo Nautilus avoid personal attacks on the talk page. If you have any quarrels with the author of that edit (that is, @Seryo93) you can discuss on their user talk page or bring them to WP:AN/I, but casting aspersion is against policy (WP:NPOV and WP:CIV). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not only is it in fact not "obvious", it's directly contrary to reality and to site-wide community consensus. What gets described here as the constitutive elements of anything whatsoever is what is stated in reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have a RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation? RSs saying that the territory of Crimea and Donbas is not internationally recognised as a part of Russia are irrelevant: they're speaking of something different. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  We do not start from a position of assuming that any nonsense claimed by the tyrant of an aggressor state is true until RS state otherwise. There are probably no sources that state the sky is not green, but we'll not state it is green because no reliable sources say it is. Content must be reliably sourced. That's the be-all and end-all of this website. If you're not keen on that policy this may not be the website for you. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  (1) Could you please stop with the "this may not be the website for you." I don't think you intend it to, but it comes across as rude and patronising.

  (2) The question of sourcing is something of a red herring, since there are plenty of reliable sources that Russia claims that the territories are constituent republics and no one is seeking to claim that "they really are" (fwiw, as an aside, I think the general position in international law is that the LPR and DPR do not legally exist at all.).

  (3) So the real issue is the npov one. Excluding the Republics from the table altogether (rather than adding them with appropriate qualifying statements) seems to me also a violation of NPOV. One could argue that inclusion is WP:UNDUE, but I think it is difficult to claim that the viewpoint of a sovereign state (even an aggressive one ruled by a tyrant) on what its administrative subdivisions are is not "a significant minority viewpoint" under that policy. Putin, the Russian state, Russian legal scholars that have claimed the DPR and LPR are federal subjects of the Russian federation are clearly "prominent adherents" under that policy. Furius (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  As I've stated in one of my other replies, Gitz's logic regarding sourcing is a bit nonsensical. You need sources to prove something exists, rather than sources to prove something doesn't exist. That should be obvious from a logical perspective. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is a clear distinction between saying "Russia claims these territories of Ukraine" versus "These territories of Ukraine are a part of Russia; look, it's in the info-box and it's on the map". We need to avoid any kind of format wherein it would appear that Wikipedia is actively endorsing Russia's viewpoints. If it comes to the point that Wikipedia actually ends up endorsing some of Russia's criminal actions, then I will boycott this website. By the way, I currently subscribe to this website and pay a small amount regularly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've had the same sort of argument with religious people, and it always boils down to this... The burden of proof always lies on the person claiming something exists, rather than on the person claiming the same thing doesn't exist. If Russia claims that some federal subjects exist, then the burden of proof is on Russia to demonstrate that they definitively exist, not on the rest of the world to demonstrate that they don't exist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  This information isn't "obvious". A lot of politics in general is not obvious. From a layman's (ordinary person's) perspective, it's more important what the de facto situation of geopolitics is, not the de jure situation. Politics is just words, whereas the reality can be objectively observed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand how the de iure/de facto distinction might be helpful here. If by any chance you wanted to entry Crimea right now, from whom would you ask permission (i.e. apply for a visa)? "De facto" Crimea and certain areas of Donbas are under Russian control now. The question, however, is "de iure": which and how many "republics" are subjects of the Russian Federation? This is a question of Russian constitutional law. Obviously the article should also say that the international community doesn't generally accept Russian's claims to Ukrainian territory - it upholds Ukraine's territorial integrity. But in the opening sentence we are providing an information about Russian constitutional law (although Cambial Yellowing thinks differently: [4]): "the Russian Federation is made of N members" (republics, territories, regions, cities, etc.). It's not difficult, there's plenty of reliable sources on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. Crimea is de facto under Russian control.

  2. Crimea is de jure recognised by the international community as a part of Ukraine.

  Is this not clear enough? The reality of the situation is on Russia's side, but the law certainly isn't. What you are trying to do here is to make both the law and the reality on Russia's side, by pushing Russia's legal interpretation of the situation as the definitive fact. Nobody here denies that Russia controls Crimea; that is plain as day. But there is a lot of opposition to the idea that Russia's control of Crimea is legitimate and justified, and rightfully so. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please note the distinction between international law and constitutional law. Take for example the opening sentence of List of states and territories of the United States. Does the sentence "under international law, the United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states" makes sense to you? No, it's false: international law doesn't regulate this matter. What about "according to international consensus, the USA is a federal republic consisting of 50 states"? This sounds almost equally weird. However, "Under U.S. constitutional law, the USA is a federal republic consisting of 50 states" makes perfect sense. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  As I've pointed out below, Russia's constitutional law is meaningless because it can be amended to show whatever Putin wants whenever he feels like it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  As for Russia's constitution, the fact that it can be amended at a moment's notice kind of invalidates its sacrosanctity, don't you think? Indeed, according to Russia's original constitution, Russia only had 83 federal subjects. The constitution currently says that Russia has 89 federal subjects because it was amended in 2014 and in 2022. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have been asked to provide sources on the point under discussion: should the Infobox include the same contents as the article, i.e. According to its constitution, the Russian Federation is divided into 89 federal subjects, 24 of which are republics, or should it rather include different, more agreeable contents? In particular, I have been asked to provide sources to support the claim that, according to Russian constitutional law, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are federal subject of the Russian Federation. So here are some sources on the subject: Aljazeera (Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed four federal constitutional laws on the entry of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions into the Russian Federation), Ukrainska Pravda (Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed "the laws on acceptance" into the Russian Federation of the occupied territories of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts, ABC (Russia's President Vladimir Putin has signed laws absorbing four Ukrainian regions into Russia, a move that finalises the annexation carried out in defiance of international law); Article 65 of the Russian constitution (listing the Republic of Crimea); the website of the Russian government (listing the Republic of Crimea, the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitz6666 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - The polities in question exist as Russian republics under Russian law, to not include them would great an NPOV issue for the article. All such disputed political subdivisions are included in tables of similar states, for examples see Pakistan and India which reference the Kashmiri polities they control.XavierGreen (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  The difference between Kashmir and eastern Ukraine is that the former region has been officially disputed between India and Pakistan ever since both countries were established in their modern forms (1940-1950), whereas Russia officially recognised eastern Ukraine and Crimea as belonging to Ukraine up until only a few years ago. Russia may have held expansionist views towards these territories on an unofficial basis beforehand, but they weren't codified into law until recently (2022 for the DPR and LPR, even though Russia has supported them as puppet states since 2014). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are not regular republics. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support for completeness, at least in the table. Of course they should be clearly marked with an asterisk, parenthetical, and/or different shading to reflect their lack of international recognition. As for the infobox – it's possible the list in the infobox should be removed. An infobox is intended for key facts (as User:Cambial Yellowing notes above), and the dispute about which republics are legitimate may be too complex for the infobox to cover adequately and neutrally. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. By design and purpose, an infobox is excellent for listing terse, simple, unambiguous information, and correspondingly very poor for anything else. A long, nuanced discussion with multiple points of facts and examples about whether a subject belongs in an infobox is the surest sign I know of that it doesn't belong there. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  But isn't it weird that the article begins with According to its constitution, the Russian Federation is divided into 89 federal subjects, 24 of which are republics while the infobox lists only 21 republics? How is this a simple and unambiguous way of providing information? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It is weird that the article starts that way, completely inappropriate, and problematic that an editor changed it from the earlier neutral opening. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The text of any article can, of course, fully state any subtle complex information that doesn't work in an infobox. A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• User:A D Monroe III, does your opinion here apply also to the table? Furius (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Info listed in a table typically shares the same strengths and weaknesses of an infobox -- appearing to be simple black-and-white facts instead of some complex mixes of shades of gray. I think there might be ways the table could handle this, but without a specific proposal of how this might be done, I'd have to oppose that as well. Maybe a short paragraph immediately after the table? A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I had in mind the way this is done on Federal subjects of Russia (which bizarrely has been totally uncontroversial while this page is mired in controversy), where the "annexed" subdivisions are in a separate section of the table, written in italics, and there are notes explaining the disputed status. Furius (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support of course. Russia claims these as their republics and there is no valid reason to exclude them. Most countries don't recognize these claims as valid, but that doesn't mean these claims don't exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Best to wait until the invasion is over. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no way to show the information in an unambiguous way. The current inclusion of number (being 21-24) is how it should be done, but just listing them is wrong. I know using other examples is not a great argument, but if you look at the Israel article you'll see the map doesn't include the Golan Heights (the infobox gives varying sizes for the country because the annexation isn't accepted by most countries). Russia can makeup anything it likes and say it's true, but we shouldn't be showing that as if it was accepted fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think that using other examples is actually a good approach, as it makes the issue less contentious and more objective. However, I'm not sure that the case of the Status of the Golan Heights is similar because, as far as I understand it, Israel is not claiming sovereignty over that area: it is an occupied territory controlled by Israel, but it's not part of Israel's territory according to the Israeli authorities. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Although Israel didn't use the word annexation in the 1981 Golan Heights Law, the effect was that the Golan Heights are treated under Israeli law as being part of Israel. Either way how it's handled in the Israel article is the situation here should be handled. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yet I read that the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled in 2017 that Israel is holding the West Bank under "belligerent occupation", and that successive Israeli governments have used the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank. The Golan Heights might perhaps be a different case because the US recognised them as Israeli sovereign territory, which seems to imply that also Israeli regards them in that way - as an annexed region, that forms part of the national territory and of the Northern District (Israel) in particular. If so, Golan Height might actually be comparable with Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, the main difference being that this article is not dealing with external borders (which are determined by international law) but with the internal organisation of a federation (which is determined by its constitutional law). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry I don't understand, of course this is an international border issue. Russia asserts that it's international border had changed to include these areas, so it is exactly the same as the Golan Heights issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I understand this RfC differently. This is an article about "Republics of Russia". Republics of Russia are an internal division of the Russian Federation: they are "federal subjects" together with krais, oblasts, cities of federal importance, etc.; they are basically an internal administrative division, as the lead of the article makes clear. So it's not a matter of international law to determine how many and which republics are part of Russia. We are just describing national constitutional law here, like we do, for instance, in U.S. state, States of Germany, Regions of Italy, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  But the issue is that these are not internal districts of Russia, they are areas international recognised as being part of Ukraine. The idea that can be separated from that because of what Russia law dictates is just wrong. Take a look at Template:Kosovo-note and the amount of articles it is transcluded to. Every article that makes mention of these republics has to clearly show their disputed nature, how Russia defines its internal divisions has nothing to do with it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you that Every article that makes mention of these republics has to clearly show their disputed nature and indeed I expressed the same notion in my !vote for "Support". Since you mention Kosovo, please note the article Districts of Serbia for comparison. Kosovo is included in the map and the infobox mentions the disputed nature of Kosovo. I don't understand why we shouldn't do the same on this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  If we remove the list of replublics from the infobox, and get an updated image that clearly shows the areas as disputed (as per the Districts of Serbia article). I would agree to that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I have not the technical ability to prepare such an updated image, but I agree with you. However, I don't understand why you would remove the list of republics from the infobox - it looks quite informative and useful with all those wikilinks. Of course we could and should signal (e.g. using asterisks and similar signs) that Crimea, LPR and DPR are "something different" and explain that their territory is internationally regarded as part of Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  A list of republics in the infobox needs to be reliably sourced in the article body. There are no reliable sources supporting the notion of the three regions as Republics of Russia, so their inclusion in the infobox under that section would be unsupported and completely inappropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have provided RSs on this here (in a comment here above that for some reason I forgot to sign). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Gitz6666, you have not provided any RS that support it, in that comment or elsewhere. Kindly refrain from inaccurately claiming to have done so. Websites or news pages that say the Russian government has claimed something, is not the same as their stating it as a fact. In addition, I would have thought this would go without saying, but Pravda is not a reliable source on this issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Pravda is a reliable source on this issue. It is Ukrainska Pravda, as I wrote, and we quote it all the time. Plus I quoted ABC, Al Jazeera, etc., all explaining that the two republics LPR and DPR have entered the Federation according to the Russian "laws on acceptance". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  OK, so I read the Ukrainska Pravda article. Like all the others, it says the notion of these as Republics of Russia is only a claim by the Russian government; something that is as reported by Russian propagandists. It says this multiple times. An article saying "X thinks Y is true" is not the same as an article that says "Y is true". It's a crucial distinction. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Whether something is a Russian governmental entity is solely up to the Russian government, though. All governments are ultimately just things people made up; Russia claiming these as Russian Republics they administer is enough to add them to this article on claimed Russian Republics. Which claims do have international recognition and which don't is not relevant. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  You're right that Which claims do have international recognition and which don't is not relevant. What matters is what reliable secondary sources say. The notion that Whether something is a Russian governmental entity is solely up to the Russian government is utter nonsense: trivially, obviously untrue. If the Russian government were to put out a statement saying Montana or Western Australia is a part of Russia, that would not make it a Republic of Russia, and we would not state as much. Content sections for facts require reliable sources which state the content as facts. There are none which do so in this case, and we do not pretend that there are. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  If Russia said "Western Australia is one of the Republics of Russia", it would indeed be a Republic of Russia, and we would include it (though we would mention that they have no actual control of the territory). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  We would not. Reliable sources make facts on this website, not the views of one government. If reliable sources report it, we would include mention of the Russian government making this outlandish claim in the article body, just as we make mention of their pretence about southeast Ukraine. But it's not something for the "key facts at a glance" part of the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  It is a fact that Russia claims these as Republics (and that is reported in reliable sources). That's all that's necessary for something to be a Republic of Russia. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is the list of replublics. Remove it and leave the list in article text where the status of the areas of Ukraine claimed by Russia can be covered correctly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have no strong views on this. However, I suspect that many editors would object to having a map showing the 3 contested republics (albeit marked by a different colour) as parts of the Russian Federation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  The point of the map would be to show Russia claims the territories, that's not a disputed claim. What's disputed is that they are part of the Russian federation, and the article should make sure it doesn't imply that. As to other editors in general it's always best to cling to WP:AGF. It's OK for us to disagree (even vehemently) but I stick to the idea that those who disagree with me are here to improve the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I do not doubt their good faith but I am quite sure of what I said: they would object (in good faith) to having a map showing that Russia claims those territories as its own republics. Am I wrong Cambial Yellowing? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  We are not just describing national constitutional law in this article. This is not an article that is about a set of legal constructs, but about actual geographical areas and their inhabitants and governance. ActivelyDisinterested is correct in stating that how Russia defines its internal divisions has nothing to do with it - it's how reliable sources define Russia's internal divisions that is the relevant topic. Theoretically, one could create an article about "Constitutional definitions of Russia's internal administrative divisions", but such an article would not attain sufficient notability for inclusion. This article is about the actual, reliably reported Republics, not those believed to exist only by the aggressor state's government. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm afraid you're wrong: "Republic" is not a geographical concept, and "Republics of Russia" are not, as you think, geographical areas. Please, read the article: is it about geographical areas and their inhabitants, as you claim? No, it's entirely about political entities or administrative unites - exactly like U.S. state, States of Germany, Regions of Italy, etc. In that respect, it is identical to Krais of Russia, Oblasts of Russia, Federal cities of Russia, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Autonomous okrugs of Russia, which all form part of the main article Federal subjects of Russia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  It is you who is wrong; you have unfortunately neglected to examine the facts in reliable sources and the article content. The political entities cover geographical areas - land area, exactly like the articles to which you wikilink - and this is made clear, to those for whom is not already obvious, in the reliable sources cited (i.e.). They are constructed by political choice, but refer to the administration and governance of land area and its inhabitants. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "the current inclusion of number (being 21-24) is how it should be done," if you think that they should not be mentioned in the infobox or table at all. Furius (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  The number field currently states:
  21 (excluding Crimea, Donetsk
  24 (including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk)
  This is the disambiguation that is needed, which wouldn't be possible if they are added to the list of republics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, this is the issue that I allude to above. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Discussions aren't helped when they are dominated by a small group of editors. Does anyone have any ideas of places we could notify to try and bring more editors to the discussion? I won't do so without other people's thoughts first, this is obviously to heated to be making unilateral invites.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I notified NPOVN a while back (I think it was before the start of the RFC). Not sure how many eyes it has brought to the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I notified the various wikiprojects named at the top of the talk page at the start of the discussion. I agree that it would be good to bring in more users (and perhaps it might be good for users like me, Cambial, Jargo, and Gitz, who have had our say, to take a step back for a bit). Perhaps it's worth taking this to the Village Pump (policy) page? NPOVN again would also be good. I also missed WikiProject Russian invasion of Ukraine, since I didn't know it existed. Furius (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  Furius, I haven't commented in this discussion (not counting this comment) since November 1. I've already said most of what I wanted to say. Some parts of what I've already said have been deleted by me at the behest of another user. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've posted a brief not at VPP and WikiProject Russian invasion of Ukraine. Would it be worthwhile posting to WP:AN? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think WP:AN is more for raging incidents than inviting people to contribute on points of content. The earlier mayhem in the talk page has already been raised there and is, I think, being dealt with. Furius (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  That's ANI, AN is the slightly less melodramatic version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Fair point. I don't see RfC's being raised there unless some administrative action is desired (I guess we could ask for moderation of the discussion?). Up to you. I'm going to follow my own advice and bow out for the time being. Furius (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think you have the right idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Just me apparently -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude - the infobox and table should list actual republics, not claimed republics. The claimed republics should be explained separately. Levivich (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: the subject of this article and the pro-Putin issue.

There may be some confusion on the subject of this article. It's most definitely not actual geographical areas and their inhabitants, land area and its inhabitants (as Cambial argued here above). Republics of Russia is nothing but a subset of Federal subjects of Russia, which also include Oblasts of Russia, Federal cities of Russia, Autonomous okrugs of Russia, and others. They are all internal subdivisions of the Russian Federation, just like U.S. state, States of Germany, Regions of Italy are subdivisions of these countries. Which and how many respubliki (or oblasti, okruga, etc.) belong to Russia is determined by domestic public law, as the opening sentence of the article makes perfectly clear: According to its constitution, the Russian Federation is divided into 89 federal subjects, 24 of which are republics We have plenty of primary and secondary RSs stating that Russia acknowledges the Republic of Crimea, the Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic as its federal subjects.

Our wikicolleages at ru.wiki, who surely are not staunch supporters of Putin as they are persecuted by the regime, also acknowledge this fact: see ru:Республика в составе Российской Федерации, According to the Russian Constitution, Russia has 89 regions, including 24 republics (my translation; 24 republics, thus including Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk). This is just a trivial, matter-of-course fact, upon which IMHO it's not reasonable to build ideological trenches.

With regard to ideology, please note that this is in no way a pro-Russian/pro-Ukraine issue. Russia acted in violation of international law not only when it invaded Ukraine, but also when it annexed the occupied territories: today, annexation is in itself a violation of international law. If Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk had not become subjects of the Russian Federation, as those who !voted "oppose" implicitly claim, then the international offence of annexation would have not been committed by Russia (but only attempted), contrary to what all RSs (including Ukrainian sources) tell us. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No-one is confused about the article subject. There is only you and one or two other editors trying to push a POV that does not accord with the mandatory, non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy. The internal subdivisions of Russia (or any nation state) refer to areas interior (adj.: of, situated on, or suitable for the inside of) to Russia. These subdivisions are delineated by covering specific regions of the land area of Russia. No reliable sources state that southeast Ukraine nor subregions within it are Republics of Russia, as has already been established. The "Constitution of Russia" is not a reliable source. The extremely poor original research you engage in at the end of your comment has no place on the article and does not merit a response. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This isn't a place to include some autocrat's aspiration. Russia doesn't even control these territories. The war is still ongoing and it's difficult to tell where either's armed forces will be in, say, the next two weeks. Both Donetsk and Luhansk should be excluded from both the infobox and the table. Nythar (💬-🎃) 18:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the reliable sources. What RS overwhelmingly say is that these regions of Ukraine were illegally annexed by Russia. The vast majority of the nations of the world do not recognize these annexations as legitimate, and they are currently being contested in open warfare. The way Wikipedia presents the relationship between these regions and the Russian Federation will remain consistent with these verifiable facts. And no, adding an asterisk is not going to cut it. Generalrelative (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose to inclusion in infobox. These two "Republics" have a status clearly different from others, but the infobox does not allow to claify it, at least in the present version. They might be included to the Table, but then they need to be clearly separted from others with a proper subtitle that was not suggested in the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion, possibly as a separate list. There are many other places of disputed sovereignty in the world and we usually describe their status rather than ignoring it
  • Administrative divisions of China Taiwan is described as a claimed province
  • Regions of Morocco, "Morocco officially administers 12 regions, including one ... that lies completely within the disputed territory of Western Sahara"
  • Districts of Israel, in which the special status of Judea and Samaria and the Golan heights is described Alaexis_¿question? 10:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

References

«Entities outside Russia»?

Why is this article about the republics of Russia listing unrecognized states?

Neither Abkhazia, nor Artsakh, nor Transnistria are part of Russia either legally or in fact. They are not specified in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Arinbard (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)